US Ski Team----funding notions

OK, the USST needs to raise money.

Other countries have tons more money than we do for our sport. Where do
the other countries get their money? Only one place: their governments.


What is the chance of the US gov't giving XC skiers money? ZERO.

What about uplifting public awareness to get thousands of small
citizen-fan and small-XC-biz donations to rescue the team? Answer: The
US economy is in the tank for small-fry.

What resource does America have that no other country can even come
close to by a hundred-fold? RICH PEOPLE!

I suggest once again that our best hope for uplifting the US XC program
is the same hope that made the critical difference for Lance A. and
Greg L.: RICH PEOPLE. (To wit, Wenzel for Lance and Mengoni for Greg.)

If XC skiers could provoke ONE of the hundreds of multimillionaires who
live in Minneapolis (there are far more of them in that one town than
in all Scandiland) to get their name and biz-name or at least their
vibe all over the US National Ski program, then the story would be a
done deal. We'd nail the game. Coz that's what America does best: RICH
PEOPLE. Don't shake a stick at em: when they decide to do something
they can make things happen.

See the XC Oregon model:
http://www.xcoregon.org/supporting.html

Yes, it is only pennys in contrast to what the Scandinavians provide to
their athletes, but an interesting start.

Edgar

On 1 Feb 2006 10:33:48 -0800, wrote:

OK, the USST needs to raise money.

Other countries have tons more money than we do for our sport. Where do
the other countries get their money? Only one place: their governments.

Not true. The Norwegian national team and many others have businesses
as sponsors.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jeff Potter wrote:
What resource does America have that no other country can even come
close to by a hundred-fold? RICH PEOPLE!

Looks like NENSA was lucky enough to have a rich donor.

http://www.fasterskier.com/news3010.html

(wow!)

John Forrest Tomlinson kirjoitti:


Other countries have tons more money than we do for our sport. Where do
the other countries get their money? Only one place: their governments.

Not true. The Norwegian national team and many others have businesses
as sponsors.

I'd be truly surprised if more than a third of the budget comes from
public funds in any form.
In Finland the annual budget for XC is currently =801.3M (i.e. more or
less what it was before 2001) of which 350.000 comes from the
government. I'm pretty sure that the ratio is about the same in the
Scandinavian countries as well.

I don't expect that the sport gets much more taxpayers' money in the
continental countries, either. OTOH in Germany and Italy an awful lot
of athletes are on a salary from the customs, the police or the army,
which is a form of government support, but the federations there still
have to rely on TV and sponsor money to balance their budgets.


Anders

I suspect that the gov't/social supports in these countries provide
what advertising-only support couldn't hope to.

Sure the ski companies and others put in a lot. They do quite a bit for
us, too, I imagine. But I mean to emphasize critical factors.

What about the community college ski schools of Scandi? It seems like
they might provide a key link between junior programs and the national
teams. I recall in Pete's book that he went over as a young person and
hopped right into such a program---it might've even been free-school.
It seems like a huge social/govt/institutional link that we don't have
here and which ad-sponsorship couldn't hope to replace. I note also
that in the new "Creating Champions" book that our fall-thru gap
between HS/coll teams and the national team is a big part of what dooms
us. I'm saying that our social/govt system will never help us bridge
it. And to bridge it will cost a big chunk. But some one big
millionaire Mnpls donor who wants to ride on the coattails of the
first-ever US Gold Oly could make it happen. If I was a millionaire I'd
jump on it.

Actually, we probably do have the resources to do lots more
comm-college development than we do. Not to pay room'n'board but for
major club support, skis, vans, gas cards. The potential is there in at
least some places---and neglected. I have to cart out my old story
about running the Univ. of Mich. XC ski club as a non-student for
several years: we got all kinds of free stuff, about $3K in funding:
gas, van, equip, wax, fees, suits. Anyone in town could participate.
When I left town the whole thing went to zilch. That was free money
that no one wanted. How many community programs could be had if someone
filled out the forms and found some willing skiers? Still...that first
big ANGEL is what's needed. One big gold and the spigot will turn on,
sez me.

--JP

This posted recently:
http://www.teamtoday.org/Stories/tab...8/Default.aspx

The U.S. has various methods of direct and indirect public funding,
too. College scholarships, presumably tax breaks for companies that
hire and sponsor athletes through certain programs, etc. Nonetheless,
it's in the historical nature of U.S. capitalism to put the primary
share on the individual and to make the rest look as individual as
possible. It's also in the nature of its ideology to believe that gold
medals, as well as a lot of other things, can be bought.

Gene


wrote:

I suspect that the gov't/social supports in these countries provide
what advertising-only support couldn't hope to.

Sure the ski companies and others put in a lot. They do quite a bit
for us, too, I imagine. But I mean to emphasize critical factors.

What about the community college ski schools of Scandi? It seems like
they might provide a key link between junior programs and the national
teams. I recall in Pete's book that he went over as a young person and
hopped right into such a program---it might've even been free-school.
It seems like a huge social/govt/institutional link that we don't have
here and which ad-sponsorship couldn't hope to replace. I note also
that in the new "Creating Champions" book that our fall-thru gap
between HS/coll teams and the national team is a big part of what
dooms us. I'm saying that our social/govt system will never help us
bridge it. And to bridge it will cost a big chunk. But some one big
millionaire Mnpls donor who wants to ride on the coattails of the
first-ever US Gold Oly could make it happen. If I was a millionaire
I'd jump on it.

Actually, we probably do have the resources to do lots more
comm-college development than we do. Not to pay room'n'board but for
major club support, skis, vans, gas cards. The potential is there in
at least some places---and neglected. I have to cart out my old story
about running the Univ. of Mich. XC ski club as a non-student for
several years: we got all kinds of free stuff, about $3K in funding:
gas, van, equip, wax, fees, suits. Anyone in town could participate.
When I left town the whole thing went to zilch. That was free money
that no one wanted. How many community programs could be had if
someone filled out the forms and found some willing skiers?
Still...that first big ANGEL is what's needed. One big gold and the
spigot will turn on, sez me.

--JP

wrote:
OK, the USST needs to raise money.

If XC skiers could provoke ONE of the hundreds of multimillionaires who
live in Minneapolis (there are far more of them in that one town than
in all Scandiland) to get their name and biz-name or at least their
vibe all over the US National Ski program, then the story would be a
done deal.


The millionaires in Minneapolis got their millions by making wise
business choices. They don't part with their money easily. The money
they give to charity goes to needy people and cultural causes. They're
not about to give cash to people who participate in an obscure sport
(by U.S. Standards) with little chance of taking a gold medal.

The people of Minnesota are very stubborn when it comes to spending tax
dollars too. The Twins and Vikings both need new and separate stadiums.
The tax payers don't want to pay for it and niether to the multi
millionaire/billonaire owners. As a result, stadium talk at the state
capitol has gone nowhere for 10 years. It's interesting that both the
owner of the Twins and the owner of the Vikings could easily pay for
their own stadiums. In fact, it would be a 'drop in the bucket' so to
speak in relation to their overall fortunes. Plus, if they did it
right, they could make money by building bars, restaurants and shops
into the complex. However, it's an ego thing with them. Since other
cities and states pay for stadiums, they don't want to spend their
money.

Now you know the mindset of the millionaires your dealing with in
Minnesota. A large trust fund set up for cross country skiing is out of
the question up here.

J Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT

the anonymous donor was me.

OK, so it'll be a tough row to hoe. Some a those fat cats have to be
out there skiing. Waiting for the right chat at the bar for them to
save the Team. : )

All right, the "Creating Champions" book refers to a couple other Oly
programs which are small, poor and deliver, so maybe cash isn't the
problem after all. I think it was Canoe & Kayak and, uh, I forget, but
apparently there are other true condender teams out there working just
as poor as we are, like the Slovenians.

Well, here's hoping for bigtime good luck at Turino!!!